It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Why might "Skeptics" join ATS

page: 6
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in


posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 03:32 AM

these are the sort of people who claim that we are all approaching a higher level of consciousness despite the fact that the world around them is growing more paranoid and hostile by the day.

There is a group mind however, hopefully we are all drawing closer to a higher level of consciousness through this experience.

hopefully we are all drawing closer is what you should have underlined, it's not the same as saying the we all are.

No I came running because someone u2u'd me that Ubercanist was taking this thread as an oppotunity to slag me and several other posters off behind our backs because on every occaison he has discussed anything with us his obvious ignorance has been waved at him like a flag

Excuse the newbie accusation.

do you really believe that there are paid disinfo agents who would bother to post at internet forums. thats hilarious on its own.

Yes, disinfo can only be a small part of their function as an agent provocateur of some agency, or a fake healer trying to save you from... whatever the guise, this medium (the net) gives them the ability to spread lies and misdirection. These people and websites exist. Believe for a second that they did exist, they certainly would at least be monitoring this website.

now if some posters don't like that its because they don't like hearing the truth when they atempt to claim that the Sumerians were in contact with Aliens or that people from Atlantis built the pyramids or that the Mayans prophesised the end of the world in 2012 (all of these examples are blatantly false)

I'll go over to that forum and read the posts. The Atlantians were high priests/ses, were they not? Do you think it's possible to communicate with them on the other side (high astral plane)? Isn't 2012 the end of the Mayan calendar? You must not be a fan of Michael Tsarion or David Icke?

That's where I get all of my ancient history from

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 03:58 AM
We are all sceptics, The "disinfo agents" are sceptical of the conspiracy theories and the "conspiracy theorists" are sceptical of the status quo.

The opposite of being a sceptic is being totally gullible where you will believe anything, despite evidence to the contrary.

So hands up everyone who isn't a sceptic?

[edit on 7-7-2007 by flurfl]

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 04:43 AM
Well said

A sceptic does not believe a particular idea or theory; he is unconvinced by the evidence presented (and may often produce counter evidence to explain his scepticism of the suggested theory). If you don't believe that 9/11 was orchestrated by Bin Laden etc, then you are a sceptic

The fact that a sceptic does not believe one particular theory does not, however, necessarily means that he blindly accepts the 'orthodox' story. He may consider that the best explanation for the available evidence, or he may believe that that too is wrong and that the true explanation remains unknown.

So just because a sceptic dismisses your idea that aliens from Zeta Reticuli blew up the Twin Towers it doesn't necessarily follow that he's a govt stooge who believes everything Bush tells him

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 05:03 AM
Depends on what your view of a skeptic is.

I believe in things so some people will call be a believe but when retards post a twig and call it an alien or think normal clouds are disguised UFOs, I rightly call them out on it so they think Im a skeptic.

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 08:25 AM

Originally posted by cpdaman
it seems a bit off to me that there are so many skeptics here

Depends on what you define a skeptic as. I don't consider it a bad word. Some people think "Skeptic" equates to "Auto-Debunker". That's as much of a misconception as assuming that "Muslim" means "Extremist". Both assumptions are ignorant of the truth, that both the latter are a mere fraction faction of the former.

A real "Skeptic" is simply someone who demands more than testimony and hearsay before making an informed decision. Many Skeptics, such as myself, believe quite firmly that there are UFOs, paranormal phenomena, and some sort of higher power. However, our approach to them is not one of assumption, but rather what the evidence suggests most.

A "Skeptic" is someone who tries to find god at the other end of a microscope rather than from the voice of a preacher.

It's not that they don't believe, some believe with great ardour. It's that we recognize most cases are hoaxes or misunderstandings of the evidence. It's not that we wish to quash the idea that "The Truth is Out There", but rather, we hold "The Truth" to a higher standard than the average believer. That's all.

[edit on 7/7/2007 by thelibra]

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 08:39 AM
the points are we(at least the vast majority) will never know the whole truth

here's why

each conspiracy theory has a unique potential to represent some part of the truth and unless you dedicate yourself in an exhausing manner and find unbiased evidence people will find it a whole hell of a lot easier in this time of fast food, and give it to me now attitude to just make up there minds about things based upon the knowledge that have at that time, and then search for evidence that backs up the opinions they hold

i was trying to make it a POINT in another thread , because i feel it is unknown. that in any society which is advanced and complex as ours, there is information which will be kept on a need to know basis. Any information that will shake things up, or cause to much uncontrollable thought be it aliens, paranormal, free energy, whatever would cause 2 much social disorder (*or at least have the potential to do so*) that the powers that be would vastly defend the secretive nature of this information wether deemed so out of there own selfish attitudes to maintain the power (and knowledge)structure that provides them the advantage over the masses and wealth or wether this is a deep seeded concern that we can't handle the truth or a combination of both.

they would also have the legal authority to surpress and discredit anyone that was threatening enough to infringe upon these National security issues, and being very smart they would have a complex system that would be very efficient at doing this, never mind a co-ordination of the highest levels in the financial-political-economic sectors which fund (what gets studied and how, and as well a vast ownership of the MEDIA) which decides how to indoctrinate people

this is something that i think to many skeptics don't understand before they form there beliefs and put there healthy skeptic glasses on.

and with all the disinfo out there, i think it is more comfortable and makes people feel more secure to be unknowingly ignorant to this than face a sea of the unknown.

hows that grab ya


Libra i should have been more precise in my use of the word skeptic, skeptics who either dismiss everything or are rude and condescending and speak in absolutes regarding the zero chance of conspiracy's ( i found it odd that there was so many who fit this category IMO on a "conspiracy website) and theorized that many fit the same simple minded thinking of someone with 2 open a mind because they abstract from one experience where they found the gov't lied or (for skeptics) that they once beleived in reptillians only to come to the conclusion they are a hoax, and now they believe all conspiracys are a waste of there time just like the other side of the spectrum thinks everything is a lie. (yet we have gone over this in the prior pages)

[edit on 7-7-2007 by cpdaman]

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 09:04 AM
OK, one more time:

  • Skepticism is not defining. It is necessary but not sufficient.
  • Skepticism is essential to any real advance in knowledge.
  • Our lives in the developed world are increasingly lived without reality checks - i.e. not many of us starve to death any more. Without skepticism we easily disappear down the rabbit hole and never re-emerge.

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 09:46 AM

Originally posted by TheDuckster
Any Proof?

Actually, I U2U'd Marduk with a link to the post referencing SuicideVirus, Byrd, and him. My comment was- "What did you do to this guy?

I said it earlier - I think Marduk brings a lot of valuable knowledge and expertise to the table, plus he makes me laugh. There are maybe 10 or so members whose posts I'll actually seek out to read. He's one of them.

So if confession is "proof", there you go.

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 11:17 AM

Originally posted by 11 11
deny ignorance - to deny your lack of knowledge - to deny something you have no knowledge of

simple and frighteningly truthful

is this the boards motto?

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 11:18 AM
I'd rather talk to a 'skeptic' (or whatever you want to call them) than a blind believer.

By skeptic I take it you mean anyone who demands proof of things before they will believe it? What's wrong with that? It helps enquiries because they usually look at every single detail and verify it as true or false, thus actually leading us to a proper conclusion.

Surely that's better than just believing everything you see without discussing it?

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 11:31 AM
read the thread please it is explained in every page

and yes i agree

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 04:56 PM
I've only been around a short time on this forum and during my short stay I'd say I've run across everything from die hard, borderline blind believers and people wanting (for example) nothing short of af UFO landing on their porch with an alien stepping up and saying hello in order for them to subscribe to the notion they might exist, might have visited and some people in this world might know more about the subject than they are letting on.

I think both is fine, or rather equally frustrating, depending on what day you ask me
. I can be stubborn, make mistakes or just plain simple be wrong. I think it's all good as long as you can admit to yourself you might be wrong or misinformed.

I initially joined this forum to get a heads up and find interesting information and in general chat about topics that interest me. Most of the time I fly right by people who, to me, seems locked up in their views of the world or seems to be here just to prove a point.

If anything though, I'd take a die hard skeptic any day over a blind believer (as has been stated in this thread probably a thousand times). Sure it bothers me that I can't talk to most people about how I view some things going on in the world by fear of ridicule, but I'd be worried if they didn't question my information or how I came to my conclusions. I'm bothered by the way most people gladly accept any spoon of the mass media and accept it as truth and by people that think they have everthing figured out or have preconcieved strong opinions about a subject without having to looked into the subject even the slightest. But that's just everyday, ordinary behavior and I can probably be just as bad.

I find it more disturbing when people are pushing their own faith or opinion down other peoples throat and call them a moron for not seeing the "truth". I'm the first to admit I can borderline sometimes when I get passionate about something or when I feel I have reached a point where I can be fairly certain about something, but you'd be hard pressed to find me calling someone names just because they don't agree.

I don't mind the "nothing to see here - move along" because I can take a look at it myself and make an informed decision by myself. But I'll happily admit it makes my life easier having a forum such as this where I can spend less time sorting the information out, most of the time the mass opinion in here is right on track and I do move along. Not to be a brownnose, but this forum is pretty democratic in the way it handles it's users and threads, we all vote/flag, we all give stars, we all have opinions.. and as always in a democracy, some people will get the feeling of being locked out or that their voice does not have enough creedance as it should have. But if that's the case one just have to find enough substance behind their thoughts in ordet to be heard and there is nothing really new about that.

All in all I guess I'm prettey darn happy about how it works in here, die hard skeptics and die hard believers and everything. Plenty of room to go around..

Hmm, feels like I went off topic a bit, sorry for that

[edit on 7-7-2007 by lasse]

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 05:13 PM
How interesting. When I think about conspiracy theorists I get the same gut reaction -- Obese anti-social folk.

Regardless -- Everyone here is a skeptic of another idea. We're all out to learn the truth, not to blather on about nonsense -- So when we see a hole in a theory, we go after it. We shouldn't continue talking about nonsense just because it's interesting, if it's blatantly only an idiot's dream.

Personally, I came for the weapons and avionics forums -- Though slowly integrated into the conspiratorial groups out of minor interest. While I attempt to contribute where possible, my own personal convictions are 'No Chemtrails', and etc. So when I see someone go into that argument, I think it's safe to bring up the opposing idea.

A one-sided argument gets you nowhere but further into ignorance.

[edit on 7-7-2007 by Iblis]

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 06:18 PM
Actually, I've been around since about the first year that the board was in existance. I posted over on the old site and moved with the new site.... so the answer, in effect, is that I've "always been here."

I'm part and parcel of the site, so to speak. Skeptic Overlord came by his handle honestly; in the early days, he was a very active skeptic and debunker. It wouldn't be the same without us. There are a number of us who have been with the site since it started.

So... honest question from someone who's been here nearly from the start: "the site came with its own set of skeptics. Why would you want to join such a site? Why didn't you join (or leave for) a site with few or no skeptics?"

Oh... for the record, I'm a liberal Democrat. I can't think of a time in my life when I was either Republican or voted conservatively. So I'm afraid I don't match the constructed stereotype.

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 06:55 PM
I agree with MajorMalfunctions first post.

I don't consider myself a skeptic, however, I DO require proof to backup a claim if you're going to try and persuade me to believe it.

At the end of the day, everything relies on proof. You say that when water boils and produces steam, I say prove it. If you get a kettle and boil water and show me steam - I believe you. No proof, and I'm on the fence at best, unless you can convince me by other methods (e.g. a photo or you explain the physics etc) that works on other proven knowledge, then again, I might believe you, but not without proof "just to make sure".

If you can't prove something, present me with as many verifiable facts as possible, and I'll draw my own conclusions.

Most skeptics are good in that they force us to re-enforce our cases, and in so doing, will cause us to either prove or disporve a point further, sio in this regard, I think they are necessary.

The type of skeptic we don't need are the type that argue every point in the light of compelling evidence, and still try and debunk you anyway. They result in detracting from other meaningful conversation, and keep you away from advancing the research further.

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 07:21 PM

Originally posted by Flyer
I believe in things so some people will call be a believe but when retards post a twig and call it an alien or think normal clouds are disguised UFOs, I rightly call them out on it so they think Im a skeptic.

The fact you refer to others as retards for posting what they see no matter how silly it may seem speaks volumes...

As to that UFO disguised as cloud... well at first glance that may seem silly, until that "cloud" beams up a cow...

Point is you never know... And I have seen it many times that those generally grouped as "skeptics" here tend to resort to name calling at the drop of a hat...

I have also noticed a few that are on here so much in so many threads that it must be their day job... so I know its not ATS, but WHO is paying their salary? ( I am sure others have noticed this) So either they are paid debunkers or grumpy old men that don't have a life

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 08:20 PM
i would like to ask if springer and simon gray (thanks byrd) if they would characterize themselves as equally skeptic as byrd has described skeptic overlord ? and if they would be able to provide a short list of alternative theories that they think may hold weight,, but they don't regularly discuss because they can't prove it (like marduk did on the last page)

[edit on 8-7-2007 by cpdaman]

posted on Jul, 7 2007 @ 10:02 PM

Originally posted by cpdaman
i would like to ask if springer and the other amigo (sorry can't remember the name, on the tip of my tongue

That'd be SimonGray.

if they would characterize themselves as equally skeptic as byrd has described skeptic overlord ? and if they would be able to provide a short list of alternative theories that they think may hold weight,, but they don't regularly discuss because they can't prove it (like marduk did on the last page)

U2U 'em and ask them, but I think the very question might come off as a bit insulting, don't you?

If you read the material here on the site that they put up (go to the member center and read their posts) you'll get a good handle on this. I don't know if their introductions survived to this board, but I think there's a "how it all started" around here if you google.

As others have pointed out, after long and harsh experience with the millions of hoaxes out there, many of the long term researchers are not willing to accept new items without good hard evidence. Gazrok is certainly a case in point. Come to think of it, this is true of the moderator staff.

But... folks who don't like to see others' excitement shut down by a cold dose of analysis or (worse) debunking may not be comfortable here at ATS. There are other fine forums that might offer support for new announcements (maybe Rense or others?) and are less critical of marginal material. Some folks find these a more comfortable home than ATS.

I'm afraid, though, that we skeptics were part of what built the place. If you appreciate the content and the analysis on some of the subjects here, realize that in part it's due to the content and comment of various skeptics on the numerous subjects here.

posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 12:45 AM
well byrd skeptics search for the truth right or do they spend more time debunking unfounded theory's based on there perception of the way things really are?

i would like to think the healthy skeptic would balance his time between the two. and i would like to think anyone who is honest and open to admitting there own fallacy's in there thinking (which would be needed to be unbiased) unless one assumes they are a know it all.

and i would be more than genuinely happy if you could save me a lil time and tell me and the rest of the board (who may be curious) a short list of any alternative theory's you may believe? i am not trying to make a game and ask eveyone, actually you and the two other amigo's are the opinions i am really most intrested in. honestly

[edit on 8-7-2007 by cpdaman]

posted on Jul, 8 2007 @ 02:57 AM
As has been pointed out many times already, the general definition of 'skeptic' AND 'opened mind' is very healthy, and infact, an absolute essential in the path to finding the 'truth'. Although of course, not everything is black and white. There are varying degrees of skeptisism, whether or not they've all been named...and as with all things in life -- different points of view will determine whether it's "good" or "bad". In other words there is no definitive, black and white answer to pretty much anything -- in which holds truth to everyone as a WHOLE.

It's the differences in 'point of views' that can lead to "unhealthy" skeptisism. Someone who has experienced a different path of life, will see and understand things differently than someone else. What one person sees as "far out" will be seen simply as a "possibility" -- to someone else.

It's this unique trait that we all carry that is the cause for all disagreements, arguments and wars. Once we can begin respecting each others point of view -- and perhaps get to the bottom of how the individual(s) came to achieve such a perspective, than we're one more step in the right direction in finding the truth. Truth doesn't come in the click of a finger as so many are expecting these days -- there are just too many combinations...ENDLESS layers that need to be explored.

The best we can ever do is move in the right direction. We may get sidetracked, we may get stalled -- but as long as we hold respect for all perspectives, we will inevitably move towards the right direction.

In the meantime... ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE!

[edit on 8/7/07 by Navieko]

<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in